JUDGINGBYYOU.COM™ IS NOT IN ANY WAY A SUBSTITUTE FOR LEGAL ADVICE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS SITE IS TO EDUCATE AND TO SPARK AN INTEREST IN THE LAW. ALL OF THE CASES ON THIS SITE ARE REAL, HOWEVER THE LAW IS CURRENTLY GROWING AND CHANGING AS NEW DEVELOPMENTS ARE MADE AND THE FINDINGS IN THESE REAL CASES DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE LAW AS IT STANDS


WHAT IS JUDGINGBYYOU.COM™ 
 
Judgingbyyou.com™ is an interactive website where you get to examine how you think past real cases should have been decided.

Below a list of facts from actual cases will be provided.

Read the facts and judging by you, what do you think the court should have found in these cases?

After reading the result that the actual court came to, more facts will be provided that helped the court come to this decision, but one of these facts will be false.

It will be up to you to judge which of these facts is incorrect.

Afterwards, you can provide your opinion on whether or not you agree with what happened and why.

                                                INDEX OF CASES

Cases on Social Host Liability:
Cases on the Duty to Rescue:
Cases on the Standard of Care Required of Doctors:
Cases on Public Disturbances:
Cases on Battery:
Cases on Hate Speech:
Cases on Murder:
Cases on Appropriating Someone's Image:
Cases on the Zone of Danger:
Cases on the Standard of Care Required of Children:
Cases on Breach of Contract:


Email info@deverettlaw.com if you have any questions or want more information regarding any of these cases.



Cases on Social Host Liability
What is social host liability?
Social host liability is not fully settled in Canadian law. Social host liability is the notion that a host of a party may be responsible for damages if a guest becomes intoxicated at their party and subsequently causes damage (such as a car accident). Should this be the fault of the host or the people who allowed themselves to become so intoxicated and subsequently caused harm to another person? If the host had not had the party or given them alcohol then no accident would have occurred. But it is not a crime to have a party. Should we really punish someone who was not even there when the actual harm occurred and never intended for anything bad to happen?

Issue

Should the host of a private party be partially responsible for a car accident caused by one of their guests drinking at their party?

Facts

1.    A man attended a bring-your-own-alcohol New Year’s party.

2.    This man only drank alcohol that he brought himself.

3.    This man drank 12 beers in under 3 hours.

4.    The host of the party asked if he was okay to drive and the man said he was.

5.    The man got into his car and drove home from the party while intoxicated.

6.    The host of the party did not offer to call a taxi or suggest some other means for his guest to get home.

7.    The guest got into a car accident with a woman, severely injuring her. She brought an action against the guest and the hosts      
        of the party.

JUDGING BY YOU ™ - SHOULD THE HOSTS OF THE PARTY BE IN ANY WAY LIABLE FOR THE INJURY


HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT HELPED LEAD TO THIS CONCLUSION. ONE OF THESE STATEMENTS IS INCORRECT. WHICH OF THESE STATEMENTS MUST BE INCORRECT IN ORDER TO HAVE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION?

1.    The host of the party saw that the guest was drinking, but did not notice the amount he consumed.

2.    The guest had a previous history of drinking and driving.

3.    The host of the party knew that the guest had been convicted twice for drinking and driving.


Want to read the original case?
Childs v. Desormeaux, 2004 CanLII 15701 (ON CA)
Link: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2004/2004canlii15701/2004canlii15701.html
This case was decided by the Ontario Court of Appeal in 2004

    What did you think about what happened in this case? Were you surprised by the result?

Issue

Can you be responsible for a car accident caused by drunk driving for a party that someone else threw at your house and provided the alcohol for?

Facts

1.   An eighteen-year-old girl went to her aunt’s home with 6 friends her age.

2.   In the past, her aunt and uncle had often supervised these parties for her and her friends and while they had told the friends in the past they disapproved of underage drinking, they always helped to care for those who were intoxicated.

3.   At the night of this party, the aunt and uncle were asleep when the girl and her friends arrived.

4.   A neighbour called in a noise complaint and called the police.

5.   The aunt and uncle's son woke up his mother and told her that a policeman was downstairs asking everybody to leave. The mother asked her son if he needed help. The son said no and the mother went back to sleep.

6.   The girl having the party got in her car when she was asked to leave. She was intoxicated and got into an accident injuring herself and her friend who was at the party and was her passenger. Her passenger sued her aunt and uncle.

JUDGING BY YOU™ - SHOULD THE HOSTS OF THE PARTY BE IN ANY WAY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INJURY?


HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT HELPED LEAD TO THIS CONCLUSION. ONE OF THESE STATEMENTS IS INCORRECT. WHICH OF THESE STATEMENTS MUST BE INCORRECT IN ORDER TO HAVE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION?

1.   The girl and her friends brought and consumed their own alcohol.

2.   The parties the aunt and uncle held in the past are irrelevant to the events that unfolded at this party.

3.   The aunt and uncle did not know in advance that their niece and her friends were coming to the house with alcohol.


Want to read the original case?

Prevost v Vetter, Prevost v. Vetter (2002), B.C.C.A. 202
Link: http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2002/2002bcca202/2002bcca202.html
This case was decided by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in 2002

    Did you agree with what happened in this case? Were you surprised by the result?

Issue

Is an employer liable for accidents that occur after work if they provide alcohol during the workday?

Facts

1.    While at the work site, an employer provided alcoholic drinks to his employees.

2.    After work, one employee went to a bar and drank more

3.    While driving home from the bar, he got into a car accident and was rendered a quadriplegic.

4.    He sued his employer.

JUDGING BY YOU™ - SHOULD THE EMPLOYERS BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EMPLOYEE'S ACTIONS AFTER HE LEFT WORK AND CONSUMED MORE ALCOHOL?


HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT HELPED LEAD TO THIS CONCLUSION. ONE OF THESE STATEMENTS IS INCORRECT. WHICH OF THESE STATEMENTS MUST BE INCORRECT IN ORDER TO HAVE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION?

1.   The crew members were instructed not to get drunk by their employer.

2.   When the workday was over, nobody was asked how much they had consumed or asked if they were fit to drive.

3.   It is unreasonable to expect the employer to monitor the consumption of each employee.


Want to read the original case?
Jacobsen v Nike Canada Ltd
Link: http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/1996/1996canlii3429/1996canlii3429.html
This case was decided in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in 1996

    Do you agree with what happened in this case? Were you surprised?

Issue

Is an employer responsible for accidents that occur after work if their employee was drinking at work without their knowledge?

Facts

1.   An employee worked for an employer for many years in the forge department where raw steel is heated.

2.    Before work the employee drank steadily from approximately 2:30 P.M. – 11P.M.

3.    At work (11P.M. – 7A.M.), he drank five more beers.

4.    After work,at his own home the employee drank more.

5.    That night at work the employee went to his truck during work and drank alcohol during all of his breaks.

6.    After work while driving he got into a car accident.

JUDGING BY YOU™ - SHOULD THE EMPLOYERS BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INJURIES IN FOR HIS CAR ACCIDENT? SHOULD THEY HAVE NOTICED HIS INTOXICATION AND THE VAST AMOUNT THAT HE WAS CONSUMING?


HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT HELPED LEAD TO THIS CONCLUSION. ONE OF THESE STATEMENTS IS INCORRECT. WHICH OF THESE STATEMENTS MUST BE INCORRECT IN ORDER TO HAVE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION?

1.      The employee was previously in a residential substance abuse program and upon his release his prognosis was that his abstaining from alcohol in the future was not favourable. His boss knew this.

2.      The employee had previously told his boss that he had an alcohol abuse program and the company had a policy to send people home in a taxi if they suspected them of drinking.

3.      In the past, the employee drank at work sometimes and his boss was aware of this. On those occasions they sent him home in a taxi.


Want to read the original case?
John v Flynn
Link: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2001/2001canlii2985/2001canlii2985.html
This case was decided in the Ontario Court of Appeal in 2001

    Do you agree with what happened in this case? Were you surprised?

Issue

Should a host be responsible for a car accident caused by an intoxicated guest of the party if the host served him the alcohol?

Facts

1.   A man threw a party for his 50th birthday.

2.   A drunken guest left the party and drove through a stop sign and hit another person's car.

3.   The guest's blood alcohol level was three times the legal limit.

JUDGING BY YOU™ -  SHOULD THE HOST BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INJURY?


HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT HELPED LEAD TO THIS CONCLUSION. ONE OF THESE STATEMENTS IS INCORRECT. WHICH OF THESE STATEMENTS MUST BE INCORRECT IN ORDER TO HAVE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION?

1.    The host was not liable because a social host is not liable for what his guests do, unless they are minors.

2.    The host knew the guest was drunk when he left the party.

3.    The host offered to call a taxi for the guest, but the guest refused.


Want to read the original case?
Sidhu v Hiebert 2011 BCSC 1364
Link - http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2011/2011bcsc1364/2011bcsc1364.html
This case was decided in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in 2011

    What do you think about the finding of this case? Were you surprised?

Issue

If a person attends a play and the theatre serves alcohol before the play and during intermission, should the theatre itself be responsible for an accident that occurs after the play?

Facts

1.    Four friends attended a dinner theatre in Edmonton.

2.    Before attending the play, one of the friends drank two beers at home.

3.    This man was served between 5-7 rum and cokes by the theatre staff, but did not show any outward signs of being intoxicated.

4.    This man and his friends discussed who should drive and the man insisted he was okay to drive.

5.    This man got into an accident causing injuries to all four of them.

JUDGING BY YOU™ -  SHOULD THE THEATRE BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALLOWING THIS ACCIDENT TO HAPPEN?


HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT HELPED LEAD TO THIS CONCLUSION. ONE OF THESE STATEMENTS IS INCORRECT. WHICH OF THESE STATEMENTS MUST BE INCORRECT IN ORDER TO HAVE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION?

1.    The waitress took no steps to monitor the man’s consumption, nor did she suggest calling a taxi.

2.    All four friends were drinking at the theatre and the man was just the most intoxicated of the four of them.

3.    A commercial host, such as the dinner theatre, owes a duty to the safety of all users of the road if they serve alcohol to their guests.


Want to read the original case?

Stewart v Pettie
Link: http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/1991/1991canlii5918/1991canlii5918.html
This case was decided in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench in 1991

    What do you think about what happened? Were you surprised?

Issue

Should a hotel be responsible for ejecting a drunk guest to protect their other guests?

Facts

1.     A man went to a hotel bar and after becoming extremely intoxicated, the hotel ejected him.

2.     The man started walking home.

3.     While walking he was hit by a car.

JUDGING BY YOU™ -  SHOULD THE BAR BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INJURIES TO MENOW BECAUSE THEY EJECTED HIM?


HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT HELPED LEAD TO THIS CONCLUSION. ONE OF THESE STATEMENTS IS INCORRECT. WHICH OF THESE STATEMENTS MUST BE INCORRECT IN ORDER TO HAVE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION?

1.    He was specifically told not to drive by hotel staff.

2.    After the hotel saw how intoxicated he was they refused to serve him.

3.    The hotel was only responsible because they had served him the alcohol that got him to that level of intoxication.


Want to read the original case?

Jordan House Ltd v Menow
Link http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1973/1973canlii16/1973canlii16.html
This case was decided in the Supreme Court of Canada in 1973

    What do you think about what happened? Were you surprised?

Issue

Can you be liable if someone gets injured in your competition if the person only injured themselves because they were intoxicated?

Facts

1.   A tubing competition was held at a ski resort.

2.   A participant signed a waiver, but he did not read the waiver.

3.   During the first race he was visibly drunk.

4.   He was not stopped from competing in the second race.

5.   He severely injured himself in the second race.

JUDGING BY YOU™ -  SHOULD THE RESORT BE LIABLE FOR HIS INJURIES EVEN THOUGH HE HAD SIGNED A WAIVER CONSENTING TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS?


HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT HELPED LEAD TO THIS CONCLUSION. ONE OF THESE STATEMENTS IS INCORRECT. WHICH OF THESE STATEMENTS MUST BE INCORRECT IN ORDER TO HAVE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION?

1.   The resort did not have a duty to absolutely force him not to participate once they noticed his condition.

2.   After the first race, even though the resort did not stop him from competing in the second one, they approached him and strongly suggested that he not participate in the second round due to his intoxication.

3.   The participant was sober when he signed the waiver.


Want to read the original case?

Crocker v Sundance
Link: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1988/1988canlii45/1988canlii45.html
This case was decided in the Supreme Court of Canada in 1988

    What do you think about the results of this case? Were you surprised?

Issue

Can an alcohol provider be liable for the conduct of a drunk person even if the alcohol provider is unaware that the person is drunk?

Facts

1.    A man went to a bar and drank about 10 beers over the course of 5 hours.

2.    He got into his car and got into a car accident.

3.    The beer was served from behind a partition in such a way that the bartender could not really see the customer and therefore could not tell if the customer was drunk

JUDGING BY YOU™ -  SHOULD THE BAR BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INJURY TO THE DRIVERS THAT GOT INTO THE COLLISION WITH THE CUSTOMER EVEN THOUGH THEY DID NOT KNOW HE WAS DRUNK?


HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT HELPED LEAD TO THIS CONCLUSION. ONE OF THESE STATEMENTS IS INCORRECT. WHICH OF THESE STATEMENTS MUST BE INCORRECT IN ORDER TO HAVE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION?

1.    The design of the bar made it impossible for the staff to absolutely monitor the customer.

2.    They should have noticed the customer because he kept coming back and had distinctive features and this was why they were liable.

3.    Before the customer left, he was specifically asked if he was okay to drive.


Want to read the original case?

Picka Estate v Porter [1980](CA)  
This case was decided in the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1980

    What do you think about what happened? Were you surprised by the results of this case?

Issue

Is a car owner liable if another driver drives his car while intoxicated?

Facts

1.    A man and his friend were out driving when the car stalled on a gravel road.

2.    The man had seen his friend consume 11 or 12 bottles of beer that evening.

3.    To get the car started again, the friend took the wheel and they attempted a rolling start.

4.    The friend lost control of the car and both were injured.

JUDGING BY YOU™ - SHOULD THE OWNER OF THE CAR BE CONTRIBUTORILY NEGLIGENT FOR HIS OWN INJURIES OR IS THE FRIEND WHO TOOK THE WHEEL LIABLE FOR THE INJURY?


HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT HELPED LEAD TO THIS CONCLUSION. ONE OF THESE STATEMENTS IS INCORRECT. WHICH OF THESE STATEMENTS MUST BE INCORRECT IN ORDER TO HAVE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION?

1.    The car owner did not consider the appellant to be drunk.

2.    The car owner wanted the friend to help start the car but never intended for him to actually drive.

3.    Since the friend's conduct was illegal, the car owner's liability was reduced.


Want to read the original case?

Hall v Hebert
Link: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1993/1993canlii141/1993canlii141.html
This case was decided in the Supreme Court of Canada in 1993

    What do you think about the finding of this case? Were you surprised?

Cases on Battery

What is Battery

Battery is touching somebody in any way without their consent.
Issue

Can you sue a child for pulling out a chair when you are about to sit down

Facts

1.    A five-year-old pulled a chair out from under his aunt just as she was about to sit down.

2.    This caused her to fall and break her hip.

3.    The aunt sued for personal injuries and was convinced that the nephew had acted deliberately.

JUDGING BY YOU™ - DO YOU THINK THE NEPHEW SHOULD BE FOUND LIABLE


HERE ARE FIVE HYPOTHETICAL STATEMENTS. ONE OF THEM IS FALSE. WHICH ONE MUST HAVE BEEN FALSE TO HAVE LED TO THE FINDING THAT THE NEPHEW  IS LIABLE FOR BATTERY?

1.    If the nephew was incapable of understanding that she could fall and possibly get hurt from not sitting on the chair properly, he would not have been held liable.

2.    If the nephew had just intended for her to fall, but not hurt herself, he would not have been held liable.

3.    If the nephew had pulled out the chair without ever considering that his aunt would ever try to sit down, it is more likely he would be held liable for negligence and not an intentional tort.

4.    If the nephew were older, this case would not have been found differently.

5.    If the nephew had intended for his aunt to sit down on this chair and fall, but someone else had tried to sit down on this chair and fell, the nephew would still be liable for an intentional tort, even though he never intended for that second person to sit down on the chair.


Want to read the original case?

Garratt v. Dailey, 46 Wash. 2d 197, 279 P.2d 1091 (Wash. 1955).
Link: http://www4.samford.edu/schools/netlaw/dh2/casetutorial/garratcs.htm
This case was decided in the Supreme Court of Washington in 1955

    What do you think about what happened in this case? Were you surprised?

Issue

Does freedom of expression include speech that is hateful towards a particular group?

Facts

1.    From 1971-1985,  a high school teacher and former mayor, was teaching anti-Semitism to his students.

2.    Students who believed in his views received higher grades than those who did not.

3.    The teacher was charged under section 281.2(2) of the Criminal Code (now 319(2) and 319(3)).

4.    Under section 2(B) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the teacher argued that he had the right to express himself.

JUDGING BY YOU™ - DO YOU THINK THE TEACHER HAD THE RIGHT TO SAY THESE THINGS UNDER HIS CHARTER RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION?


HERE ARE FIVE HYPOTHETICAL STATEMENTS. ONE OF THEM IS FALSE. WHICH ONE MUST HAVE BEEN FALSE TO HAVE LED TO THE FINDING THAT THE TEACHER CONTRAVENED THE CRIMINAL CODE?

1.    Had the teacher made these statements honestly and truly felt he was expressing an opinion on a religious subject he would not have been convicted.

2.    Had the teacher reasonably believed the statements he was making were true and relevant to a subject of public interest, he would not have been convicted.

3.    Had the teacher made these statements in a private conversation and was overheard and repeated by young students, he would not have been convicted.

4.    If the teacher had made these statements to full grown adults, more capable of realizing that his opinions might not be true, he would not have been convicted.

5.    Had he been able to establish that the hateful statements he was making were true he would not have been convicted.


Want to read the original case?

R v Keegstra
Link: http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/1996/1996abca308/1996abca308.html
This case was decided in the Alberta Court of Appeal in 1996

    What do you think about the results of this case? Were you surprised?

Cases on Murder

CASE # 401
Issue - Murder in your Sleep

Can sleepwalking be a defence to murder and attempted murder?

Facts

1.    A man had recently lost his job and was having other personal problems which made it difficult for him to sleep.

2.    One night, while sleepwalking he put on his jacket and shoes, got into his car, drove 23 kilometres on a highway, parked, and entered the home of his in-laws.

3.    While he was still sleepwalking, he killed his mother-in-law and severely injured his father-in-law.

4.    He previously had a good relationship with his in-laws.

5.    He then drove to a police station in great distress and confessed.

6.    He did not remember anything about the actual attack.

7.    A medical expert testified that the man truly was sleepwalking at the time of the incident.

JUDGING BY YOU™ -  SHOULD THE MAN BE CHARGED WITH MURDER AND/OR ATTEMPTED MURDER?


HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT HELPED LEAD TO THIS CONCLUSION. ONE OF THESE STATEMENTS IS INCORRECT. WHICH OF THESE STATMENTS MUST BE INCORRECT IN ORDER TO HAVE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION?

1.    He had a previous history of sleepwalking.

2.    Sleepwalking is a common mental disorder.

3.    The man's action was involuntarily and did not know what he was doing when he was doing it


Want to read the original case?

R v Parks
Link: http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/1996/1996abca308/1996abca308.html
This case was decided in the Alberta Court of Appeal in 1996

    What do you think about the results of this case? Were you surprised?

Cases on Appropriating Someone’s Image

 CASE # 501 - This Picture Looks a Bit Like You
Issue

Are you invading someone’s rights to their personality by using a line drawing that shares a likeness to a pose that they often use?

Facts

1.    A professional water skier had a famous pose that he used in all of his promotions.

2.    There was a summer camp for children that included water skiing as one of their activities.

3.    The camp included a picture of a line drawing of a water skier in their brochure advertising the camp. This picture did not have the skier's face or body in it, but it was a line drawing of a person in the pose that the skier used in all of his pictures.

4.    There is no proof that adding that picture to the brochure convinced anyone to attend the camp.

5.    The skier sued for the use of his image.

JUDGING BY YOU™ -  SHOULD THE CAMP BE LIABLE FOR USING HIS IMAGE?


HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT HELPED LEAD TO THIS CONCLUSION. ONE OF THESE STATEMENTS IS INCORRECT. WHICH OF THESE STATEMENTS MUST BE INCORRECT IN ORDER TO HAVE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION?

1.    The skier had no official copyright on the use of this pose.

2.    There is no proof that anybody saw the brochure and thought that the skier was affiliated with the camp in any way.

3.    Upon arrival at the camp, none of the children expected the skier to be there.

4.    The pose itself was just a pose of a person skiing and was not necessarily the skier's pose.

5.    There is no proof that anybody ever recognized the picture to contain a likeness to the skier.

6.    The brochure did not mention the skier's name at all.


Want to read the original case?

Athans v. Canadian Adventure Camps Ltd   17 O.R. (2d) 425; 1977 Ont. Rep. LEXIS 86
This case was decided in the Ontario High Court of Justice in 1977

    What do you think about the results of this case? Were you surprised?

Cases on the Zone of Danger

 CASE # 601 - Is Everything Attached?
Issue

If you are driving and something on the back of your truck is not secure, are you responsible for the damage to someone who is illegally trying to trespass onto the back of your truck if they get injured by the unsecured items?

Facts

1.    A lorry was driving with a huge container on the back of it.

2.    The lorry drove through a bridge and the package did not fit through the bridge and fell off the lorry.

3.    The package fell off and hit a boy who was about to trespass and hitch a ride on the truck

JUDGING BY YOU™ -  SHOULD THE LORRY DRIVER BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INJURIES TO THE BOY?


HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT HELPED LEAD TO THIS CONCLUSION. ONE OF THESE STATEMENTS IS INCORRECT. WHICH OF THESE STATEMENTS MUST BE INCORRECT IN ORDER TO HAVE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION?

1.    The driver owed a duty not to harm anyone and the boy was harmed.

2.    The driver of the truck could not reasonably have expected the boy to be there.

3.     The driver owed a duty to anyone who might have been near the box when it fell.


Want to read the original case?

Farrugia v Great Western Railway
Link: http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/sydney1&div=4&id=&page
This case was decided in the UK in 1947

    What do you think about the results of this case? Were you surprised?

Issue

If you help a man board a moving train and a package the man is carrying falls and explodes injuring someone far down the railroad tracks, are you responsible for the injury to that person far from you even though you had no idea what was in the package?

Facts

1.    A woman was standing on a train platform.

2.    A bit away from her two guards were helping a man hurrying to jump onto a train.

3.    The package the man was carrying fell and exploded when it hit the tracks.

4.    The shock of the explosion caused scales on the other side of the platform to fall.

5.    These scales hit and injured the woman standing far away from them.

JUDGING BY YOU™ -  SHOULD THE GUARDS BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INJURY TO THE WOMAN?


HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT HELPED LEAD TO THIS CONCLUSION. ONE OF THESE STATEMENTS IS INCORRECT. WHICH OF THESE STATEMENTS MUST BE INCORRECT IN ORDER TO HAVE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION?

1.    The guards did not know that the package the man had contained fireworks.

2.    If the guard had intentionally taken the package and thrown it, the guard would be liable.

3.    The guards may be liable to other passengers, but not to the woman.


Want to read the original case?

Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co
Link: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/history/cases/palsgraf_lirr.htm
This case was decided in New York in 1928

    What do you think about the results of this case? Were you surprised?

Issue

Is a cricket course liable for injuries to a person if a player hits a ball out of the grounds of the golf course and injures somebody?

Facts

1.    A woman was hit in the head by a ball that flew from a cricket field across the road and hit her in front of her home.

2.    She sued the owner of the cricket field for negligence because he should have built a fence high enough to prevent stray balls from doing this.

JUDGING BY YOU™ -  SHOULD THE OWNER OF THE CRICKET COURSE BE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER INJURY


HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT HELPED LEAD TO THIS CONCLUSION. ONE OF THESE STATEMENTS IS INCORRECT. WHICH OF THESE STATEMENTS MUST BE INCORRECT IN ORDER TO HAVE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION?

1.    The cricket owner should have built a fence to protect this from happening to anybody.

2.    During the last 30 years, 5 or 6 balls had flown across the road and hit the house or had landed in the yard.

3.    It was foreseeable that this injury could have happened to the woman.


Want to read the original case?

Bolton v Stone
Link: http://law-uk.info/2012/04/bolton-v-stone-1951-ac-850/
This case was decided in the UK in 1951

    What do you think about the results of this case? Were you surprised?

Issue

Can a person who witnesses a car accident get damages for a shock suffered from witnessing this scene from the person who caused the accident?

Facts

1. A man was carelessly driving his motorcycle and got into a collision with a car.

2. A pregnant woman was standing about 50 feet from the scene of the crash.

3. The woman was very shocked by the crash and when she delivered her baby a month later it was stillborn.

4. She blamed this loss on her shock from the collision.

JUDGING BY YOU™ - SHOULD THE MOTORCYCLE DRIVER BE LIABLE FOR THE LOSS?


HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT HELPED LEAD TO THIS CONCLUSION. ONE OF THESE STATEMENTS IS INCORRECT. WHICH OF THESE STATEMENTS MUST BE INCORRECT IN ORDER TO HAVE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION?

1.    The motorcyclist could see the woman when he was riding, but was nowhere near her when the crash actually occurred.

2.    The woman honestly believed upon hearing the crash that she might be harmed.

3.    A doctor testified that this shock was a probable cause of the harm to her child.

Want to read the original case?

BOURHILL V YOUNG
This case was decided in Scotland in 1943

    What did you think about the results of this case? Were you surprised?

Cases on the Duty to Rescue

 CASE # 701
Issue - Responsibility for your Customers

If a person collapses in your store and you try and help her and take her to a store infirmary, are you liable if she dies from her collapse in your store?

Facts

1.    While shopping, a woman collapsed in a department store.

2.    She was taken by store attendants to the store infirmary.

3.    They left her unattended in the store’s infirmary for a few hours.

4.    The woman died while in the store infirmary and her heirs sued the store.

JUDGING BY YOU™ -  SHOULD THE STORE BE LIABLE FOR A MEDICAL INJURY THAT OCCURRED ON THEIR PREMISES


HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT HELPED LEAD TO THIS CONCLUSION. ONE OF THESE STATEMENTS IS INCORRECT. WHICH OF THESE STATEMENTS MUST BE INCORRECT IN ORDER TO HAVE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION?

1.    The store infirmary was well equipped.

2.    The staff had every intention to help and rescue the woman.

3.    Had the staff just ignored her when she collapsed they still would have been liable.

    What do you think about the results of this case? Were you surprised?

Issue - Catch that Criminal

Can the police be liable for failing to protect someone if they know a criminal is committing crimes and harming people and they do not stop him?

Facts

1.    A woman's apartment was broken from her balcony and she was attacked.

2.    In the past seven months, this had happened to four other women in the woman's neighbourhood.

3.    The woman sued the police for negligence, stating that if they had informed the neighbourhood of the possible risks then she would have taken more precautions in locking her balcony door.

JUDGING BY YOU™ -  SHOULD THE POLICE BE LIABLE FOR WHAT HAPPENED?


HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT HELPED LEAD TO THIS CONCLUSION. ONE OF THESE STATEMENTS IS INCORRECT. WHICH OF THESE STATEMENTS MUST BE INCORRECT IN ORDER TO HAVE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION?

1.    The police knew that the attacker was targeting young, blonde, women with second floor balcony apartments and the woman fit this description.

2.    The police stated that they did not want to tell women in the area because they would become hysterical and that would be counterproductive to their investigation.

3.    The police did not think that the attacker would strike again.

    What do you think about the results of this case? Were you surprised?

Issue - Do I Have to Help?

If someone is drowning in front of you and asking you to help them, do you have to help?

Facts

1.    A man rented a canoe to two very obviously drunk men.

2.    While on the canoe the boat flips over and one man drowns.

3.    The other man hangs on to the boat for 30 minutes screaming for help.

4.    The boat owner heard the man, but did not help him.

JUDGING BY YOU™ -  SHOULD THE BOAT OWNER BE LIABLE FOR NOT RESCUING SOMEONE WHOM HE KNEW WAS IN TROUBLE


HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT HELPED LEAD TO THIS CONCLUSION. ONE OF THESE STATEMENTS IS INCORRECT. WHICH OF THESE STATEMENTS MUST BE INCORRECT IN ORDER TO HAVE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION?

1.    The boat owner was a very strong swimmer and easily could have rescued the men.

2.    The boat owner was responsible for their safety because he had rented them the boat, but since it was their own fault the boat capsized he did not have to go rescue them.

3.    The boat owner knew that they were drunk when they rented the boat.


Want to read the original case?

OSTERLIND V HILL
This case was decided in Nebraska in 1928

    What do you think about the results of this case? Were you surprised?

Issue - Rescuing your Guests

If you attempt a rescue for people who fall off your boat and you do not rescue them in the exact proper way, are you liable if they drown?

Facts

1.    A passenger accidently fell overboard while on his friend’s boat.The passenger seemed unconscious to those on the boat.

2.    Another passenger jumped in to rescue him.

3.   He was not able to rescue the first passenger who fell and drowned as well.

4.    When the first passenger fell and then the second passenger jumped, the boat owner did not follow the recommended method that all boat owners should know when attempting a rescue (to circle and bring the boat bow towards the body). The boat owner put the boat in neutral and backed up and shut off the engines. He then attempted to rescue him with a pike pole and a life-belt.

5.    These attempts were unsuccessful.

JUDGING BY YOU™ -  SHOULD THE BOAT OWNER BE LIABLE FOR THE INJURIES


HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT HELPED LEAD TO THIS CONCLUSION. ONE OF THESE STATEMENTS IS INCORRECT. WHICH OF THESE STATEMENTS MUST BE INCORRECT IN ORDER TO HAVE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION?

1.    The passengers died from the shock of the cold water not from drowning.

2.    Another passenger of the boat jumped in to rescue the two passengers and the boat owner was able to save her.

3.    The rescue that the boat owner attempted was unreasonable, but he had no duty to rescue.


Want to read the original case?

HORSLEY V MACLAREN
Link: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1971/1971canlii24/1971canlii24.html
This case was decided in the Supreme Court of Canada in 1971

    What do you think about the results of this case? Were you surprised?

STANDARD OF CARE REQUIRED OF CHILDREN

 CASE # 801
Issue - Children and Weapons

To what extent can we punish a child for harming someone with a weapon if the weapon was foolishly left within the reach of the child?

Facts

1.    A boy's father had left guns around the house in a cabinet.

2.    The boy was between the age of 5 and 7.

3.    The boy's friend came to visit and him and they decided to play with the guns.

4.    The boy shot his friend accidentally.

5.    The friend was injured, but the bullet mostly grazed him and he was not seriously hurt.

6.    Instead of getting help, the boy hid his friend in the basement.

JUDGING BY YOU™ -  SHOULD THE BOY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR HURTING HIS FRIEND? WAS THE FRIEND ALSO NEGLIGENT?


HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT HELPED LEAD TO THIS CONCLUSION. ONE OF THESE STATEMENTS IS INCORRECT. WHICH OF THESE STATEMENTS MUST BE INCORRECT IN ORDER TO HAVE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION?

1.    The friend put a bullet into the gun himself before the boy shot him.

2.    The boy acted like any boy his age would have in such a situation.

3.    The boy had no idea there were any bullets in the gun.


Bishop v Sharrow
This case was decided in Ontario in 1975

    What do you think about the results of this case? Were you surprised?

Issue

If a child runs across the road negligently and gets hit by a car, can we fully blame the driver or is the child liable as well?

Facts

1.    A six year old girl saw her sister across a busy road and ran across the road.

2.    She was hit by a car (the girl was injured, but was okay in the end).

3.    The driver of the car was speeding a little bit, but slowed down to regular speed by the time he got to where the girl was.

4.    It was found that if he had been paying somewhat more attention to the road he may have been able to prevent the collision entirely.

JUDGING BY YOU™ - IS THE CHILD CONTRIBUTORILY NEGLIGENT FOR THE ACCIDENT FOR RUNNING ACROSS A BUSY ROAD?


HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT HELPED LEAD TO THIS CONCLUSION. ONE OF THESE STATEMENTS IS INCORRECT. WHICH OF THESE STATMENTS MUST BE INCORRECT IN ORDER TO HAVE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION?

1.    Another child her age would have understood not to run across the road.

2.    The girl lived across the street and her father had taught her for years never to run across the street.

3.    The girl had learned a lot about street and road safety in school and knew and appreciated what could happen if you do not look both ways before you cross the street.


Want to read the original case?

Joyal v Barsby
This case was published in the Dominion Law Reports in 1965

    What did you think about the results of this case? Were you surprised?

Issue

Can children be liable for hurting other children when driving a snowmobile? Can you hold a child to be contributorily negligent for falling off a snowmobile if he was not holding on properly?

Facts

1.    A 12-year-old boy  and a 14-year-old boy were driving snowmobiles on a highway. They each had passengers.

2.    A 9 year old passenger was not holding on and fell off the snowmobile and got hurt.

JUDGING BY YOU™ - SHOULD THE DRIVERS BE LIABLE FOR HIM FALLING OFF AND DOES THE 9-YEAR-OLD SHARE LIABILITY FOR NOT HOLDING ON PROPERLY? CAN WE ATTRIBUTE THIS RESPONSIBILITY TO A CHILD?


HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT HELPED LEAD TO THIS CONCLUSION. ONE OF THESE STATEMENTS IS INCORRECT. WHICH OF THESE STATMENTS MUST BE INCORRECT IN ORDER TO HAVE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION?

1.    If the children were not playing on a snowmobile, but playing with weapons they still would have been found liable.

2.    The snowmobile drivers had attended snowmobile and safety lessons in the past

3.    The drivers knew that the young boy may not be strong enough to hold on.


Want to read the original case?

Ryan v Hickson
This case was decided in the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1975

    What do you think about the results of this case? Were you surprised?

THE STANDARD OF CARE EXPECTED OF DOCTORS

 CASE # 901 - That's Not How I Wanted to Look
Issue 

Can you hold a plastic surgeon liable if you do not end up looking the way that you wanted to look when you underwent the surgery?

Facts

1.    A plastic surgeon was hired to enhance a woman’s breasts.

2.    The surgeon did the procedure in a much shorter time than is usually required.

3.    The woman suffered from scarring and was not happy with her appearance following the surgery

JUDGING BY YOU™ -  SHOULD THE SURGEON BE LIABLE FOR NOT ENSURING THAT THE WOMAN LOOKED EXACTLY AS SHE WANTED TO?


HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT HELPED LEAD TO THIS CONCLUSION. ONE OF THESE STATEMENTS IS INCORRECT. WHICH OF THESE STATEMENTS MUST BE INCORRECT IN ORDER TO HAVE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION?

1.    If the surgeon had done it in the proper time and still made a mistake, he may not have been found liable.

2.    If the surgeon had done the procedure incorrectly, but it could be proved that other surgeons may have made the same mistake he still would have been found liable.

3.    If the surgeon had not done the procedure in the proper time, but the procedure was successful, he would not have been found liable


White v Turner
This case was decided in the Ontario High Court of Justice in 1981

    What do you think about the results of this case? Were you surprised?

Issue

Can a doctor be found liable for a patient contracting HIV during an artificial insemination?

Facts

1.    While performing a procedure for artificial insemination, the patient contract HIV

2.    The procedure that the doctor used was the standard medical procedure at the time

3.    The doctor himself did not know that there was a possibility of a risk of HIV occurring from this procedure

4.    Medical knowledge in general suspected that HIV may be a risk from this procedure, but the doctor was unaware of this risk.

JUDGING BY YOU™ -  WAS THE DOCTOR NEGLIGENT FOR NOT MAKING HIMSELF AWARE OF THIS RISK BEFORE PERFORMING THE PROCEDURE


HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT HELPED LEAD TO THIS CONCLUSION. ONE OF THESE STATEMENTS IS INCORRECT. WHICH OF THESE STATEMENTS MUST BE INCORRECT IN ORDER TO HAVE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION?

1.    The physician had adopted the standard practice  that doctors used when performing this procedure

2.    Doctors must be judged in light of knowledge they ought to have reasonably possessed at the time of the negligent act.

3.    The standard of practice itself was negligent, so it is unfair to hold the doctor liable for this.


Want to read the original case?

Ter Neuzen v Korn
Link: http://canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1995/1995canlii72/1995canlii72.html
This case was decided in the Supreme Court of Canada in 1995

    What do you think about the results of this case? Were you surprised?

Issue

Can you hold a doctor liable for sending someone home from the hospital when they need treatment?

Facts

1.    A man was poisoned by a cup of tea that he drank.

2.    He went to the emergency room because he was feeling sick.

3.    They told him he was fine and sent him home.

4.    If they had given him a certain test they may have been able to give him the proper treatment to save him.

JUDGING BY YOU™ -  SHOULD THE DOCTOR BE LIABLE FOR SENDING HIM HOME AND NOT TREATING HIM?


HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT HELPED LEAD TO THIS CONCLUSION. ONE OF THESE STATEMENTS IS INCORRECT. WHICH OF THESE STATEMENTS MUST BE INCORRECT IN ORDER TO HAVE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION?

1.    It was negligent of the doctor to not to admit him into the hospital and send him home.

2.    There was a chance that even if he was properly treated the patient still would have died

3.    It is the standard practice to send people with such minimal symptoms home and that is why the doctor was not liable.


Want to read the original case?

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee
This case was decided in Quebec in 1969

    What do you think about the results of this case? Were you surprised?

Issue

If a person gets injured during a medical test that follows the standard procedure, can the doctor still be found liable for the patient’s condition?

Facts

1.    The doctor was performing a routine gait assessment.

2.    This test involved him following the patient around the room while she walked.

3.    The woman who had experienced loss of balance for weeks fell down before the doctor could catch her.

4.    She did not severely injure herself, but the woman hit her head when she fell and she would not have hit her head if the doctor had caught her.

5.    The procedure itself was done properly, but the doctor did not take notice of the woman’s dizziness.

JUDGING BY YOU™ -  WAS THE DOCTOR NEGLIGENT FOR NOT NOTICING OR INQUIRING ABOUT HER DIZZINESS?


HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT HELPED LEAD TO THIS CONCLUSION. ONE OF THESE STATEMENTS IS INCORRECT. WHICH OF THESE STATEMENTS MUST BE INCORRECT IN ORDER TO HAVE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION?

1.    When the woman started walking, she told the doctor she had trouble walking.

2.    A doctor trained in medicine should have noticed her dizziness.

3.    A non-medical expert would reasonably have put a nurse in the room, but this is not part of the standard medical practice.


Want to read the original case?

Girard v General Hospital of Port Arthur
Link: http://www.lexisnexis.com/ca/legal/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T14724193400&format=GNBFULL&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T14724193406&cisb=22_T14724193403&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=280717&docNo=1
This case was decided in the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1998

    What did you think about the results of this case? Were you surprised?

Issue

If an advertisement says that something is guaranteed to work, is that a legally binding contract?

Facts

1.    A woman saw an advertisement in the newspaper by a doctor that offered a guarantee to safely remove all the hair from one’s face by electrolysis.

2.    She went to the business and was told by the doctor’s assistant that her face could definitely be cleared and that the results were guaranteed.

3.    The woman never received this guarantee from the doctor himself.

4.    She was then given a number of treatments.

5.    Hair continued to grow on her face following the treatments.

6.    She brought the doctor to court, claiming that they had a contract because he had guaranteed that her skin would be cleared and it was not.

JUDGING BY YOU™ - SHOULD THE DOCTOR BE RESPONSIBLE BECAUSE THE PROCEDURE DID NOT WORK EVEN THOUGH HE HAD GUARANTEED IT WOULD?


HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT HELPED LEAD TO THIS CONCLUSION. ONE OF THESE STATEMENTS IS INCORRECT. WHICH OF THESE STATEMENTS MUST BE INCORRECT IN ORDER TO HAVE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION?

1.    This advertisement alone was enough to make this contract legally binding

2.    The woman truly believed that the doctor would be able to absolutely remove all the hair from her face.

3.    The doctor truly believed that he would be able to absolutely remove all the hair from the woman's face.


Want to read the original case?

Goldthorpe v Logan
Link: http://www.lexisnexis.com/ca/legal/Results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T14673480417&format=GNBFULL&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&ResultsUrlKey=29_T14673480420&cisb=22_T14673480419&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=280717&docNo=1
This case was decided in the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1943

    What did you think about the results of this case? Were you surprised?

CASES ON PUBLIC DISTURBANCES

 CASE 1101 - Turn That Lawn Mower Off!
Issue

Should threatening to harm someone only if you have the means to carry out this threat be considered a public disturbance?

Facts:

1. A man ran loud motors on his lawn which made loud noises.

2. His neighbour was disturbed by these noises.

3. The neighbour often swore directly to the lawn mower owner when telling him that his motors were too loud.

4. On one occasion, the neighbour shouted that he would shoot the lawn mower owner if he owned a gun.

5. A complaint was filed that this shouting and this threat was causing a public disturbance?

JUDGING BY YOU™ – DID THE NEIGHBOUR CAUSE A PUBLIC DISTURBANCE?


HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT HELPED LEAD TO THIS CONCLUSION. ONE OF THESE STATEMENTS IS INCORRECT. WHICH OF THESE STATEMENTS MUST BE INCORRECT IN ORDER TO HAVE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION?

1.    There were no other witnesses around when the neighbour made this statement.

2.    The neighbour’s statement caused emotional upset to the man with the lawn mower, but he was never physically disturbed in any way.

3.    Other witnesses testified to the loudness and the extremity of noise that came from the lawn mower.

Want to read the original case?

R v Lohnes
Link: http://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nsca/doc/1990/1990canlii2367/1990canlii2367.html
This case was decided in the Supreme Court of Canada in 1990

    What did you think about the results of this case? Were you surprised?

This website is owned and operated by Michael Deverett (416) 222-6789 (info@deverettlaw.com) .
JUDGINGBYYOU.COM™ IS NOT IN ANY WAY A SUBSTITUTE FOR LEGAL ADVICE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS SITE IS TO EDUCATE AND TO SPARK AN INTEREST IN THE LAW. ALL OF THE CASES ON THIS SITE ARE REAL, HOWEVER THE LAW IS CURRENTLY GROWING AND CHANGING AS NEW DEVELOPMENTS ARE MADE AND THE FINDINGS IN THESE REAL CASES DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE LAW AS IT STANDS

Picture